FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Outrage over Virginia Tech game





bigdan
Quote:
Outrage over Virginia Tech game
Stephen Hutcheon
May 16, 2007 - 1:33PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/games/outrage-over-virginia-tech-game/2007/05/16/1178995212668.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

A Sydney youth who created an uproar with an online game based on the Virginia Tech massacre, says he will remove the game if he receives $US2000 in "donations".

Add another $US1000 and he promises to apologise.

The game, called V-Tech Rampage, offers "three levels of stealth and murder" and is set on a facsimile of the Virginia Tech campus.

It is modelled on the exploits of South Korean-born Cho Seung-hui who last month shot dead 32 fellow students at the Virginia Tech campus in the worst such massacre in US history.

The game features a gun-toting character based on Cho, the dormitory where the killing spree started, the post office where he sent his manifesto to a TV network and Norris Hall, the building where most of the murders took place.

The game first came to light after it was uploaded to a site called newgrounds.com which hosts a large number of basic, mainly home made , computer games. Game makers upload their creations on to the site much in the same way as people upload videos to YouTube.

V-Tech Rampage is the work of 21-year-old Ryan Lambourn from western Sydney who goes by the screen name, Master PiGPEN.

"I've done offensive things before but they're not usually this popular," Lamourn said, adding that he made the game "because it's funny".

Lambourn, who grew up in the US, said his friends suggested putting up the ransom demand which he thought was "a hilarious idea".

He posted the demand on his website saying: "Attention angry people: I will take this game down from newgrounds [the games website] if the donation amount reaches $1000 US. I'll take it down from here [his website] if it reaches $2000 US, and i will apologise if it reaches $3000 US."

He described the exercise as "a joke". "They were so adamant about me taking my game down ... I gave them a way," he said.

"The donation thing was just to pull a few more strings and make more people angry. It's worked."

Lambourn said that while he felt remorse for those who had lost friends and relatives in the massacre, he also had sympathy for the gunman.

"No one listens to you unless you've got something sensational to do." he said. "And that's why I feel sympathy for Cho Seung-hui. He had to go that far."

The game requires players to move the pixellated South Park-like Cho character around the campus, shooting other characters.

Once shots are fired, the other characters start running around with their hands in the air screaming. A song, Shine by the band Collective Soul, is played on a loop in the background.

Lambourn chose the song for the game because it was one of the gunman's favourites.

The game starts with the gunman in his room. The text on the screen says: "Locked and loaded, it's party time. I just gotta make sure no one sees me or lives to tell the tale."

In another frame, the following words appear: "The pawns are all in place, the time has come that I may finally send my message to the world."

The game text also refers to "Emily". Emily Jane Hilscher, 18, was Cho's first victim. The subject of his infatuation, she was shot in a dormitory.

"Emily stayed overnight with her boyfriend, Karl, again last night. He'll be dropping her off at school as always ...," the game text reads.

Players who fail to shoot the characters get the following message at the conclusion: "Mediocrity. You let Emily get away! Are you always full of shit, McBeef? Try again, this time don't be such a wuss."

"McBeef" is a reference to a play Cho wrote called Richard McBeef. The disturbing play features a 13-year-old boy who accuses his stepfather of being a pedophile and of murdering his father.

The play ends with the man striking down and killing the teen.

The game and its creator have been roundly condemned on blogs and forums on the internet.

"People like this need to be publicly beaten," reads one blog comment. "This ****** is possible the worst little piece festering of pond scum in years."


I hope he gets what's coming to him.
Vrythramax
I don't usually condone violence...but that kid needs a good beating plain and simple.
bigdan
Vrythramax wrote:
I don't usually condone violence...but that kid needs a good beating plain and simple.


Wanna come over to Australia and join me? Laughing Very Happy
Daisie
Quote:
"People like this need to be publicly beaten," reads one blog comment. "This ****** is possible the worst little piece festering of pond scum in years."


that's sums up what I think.
ocalhoun
I'll throw this disgusting sheen of political correctness out, and give him a

I especially like the part about demanding a ransom to take the game off the internet. If you want it off the internet so badly, give him $3000!
Vrythramax
ocalhoun wrote:
I'll throw this disgusting sheen of political correctness out, and give him a

I especially like the part about demanding a ransom to take the game off the internet. If you want it off the internet so badly, give him $3000!


I'm willing to bet that if it were a family member of yours that was killed (or a horse), you would not be so quick to give that creep a "thumbs up".
smarter
ocalhoun wrote:
I'll throw this disgusting sheen of political correctness out, and give him a ... I especially like the part about demanding a ransom to take the game off the internet. If you want it off the internet so badly, give him $3000!


"political correctness"? political correctness is when I can't say my opinion about that ****** [read a_sshole] because I'm censored! don't give him any money, just ignore lowlifes like him!

To be scum is very easy, to be good is harder than you think!
poiko123
That's ridiculous. That may be one of the most immoral ways to raise money I have ever heard.
Soulfire
Why aren't you complaining about games made about WWII? WWII was a terrible, horrible cost of human life. But you don't have a problem with it? What about GTA which is based on killing people, sex, and drugs? The thing is, we are so desensitized when it comes to violence that it doesn't matter.

What about the various Columbine RPG's in existence? Shall we bring those under fire as well?

Fact of the matter is, like it or not, it's freedom. He can make a game if he wants, and shouldn't have to worry about getting beaten.
Liu
I agree that he does have the freedom to do something so tasteless, however lets say I was to make a game of baking Jewish prisoners in ovens.

Ignore the political aspects of freedom to do so, is this right to? Do you have no gut feeling inside of you that making such a game would be wrong?
Vrythramax
I agree with Lui, political correctness aside, it seems that if if we won the war, we have the right to joke about it. This is not right.

I don't ascribe to any particular political agenda, but as was stated....it seems some wars are alright to make light of, and other conflicts are not. I think what is happening here with this particular game is heated because of the fact that the events are so new to us and still fresh in our minds. If we had the computer technology we have today in the 1940's I'm sure some enterprising dolt would have made a Pearl Harbor game that would have met with the same negative response as this one has.

One thing everyone seems to be missing....by posting in this topic is only helping to propagate this game and helping advertise the madness.
ocalhoun
Vrythramax wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'll throw this disgusting sheen of political correctness out, and give him a

I especially like the part about demanding a ransom to take the game off the internet. If you want it off the internet so badly, give him $3000!


I'm willing to bet that if it were a family member of yours that was killed (or a horse), you would not be so quick to give that creep a "thumbs up".


I support the right to freedom of expression NO MATTER WHAT. If you are offended by the game, don't play it. Nobody is forcing it on you. How long will it be until the attitudes voiced in this topic rewrite freedom of speech to mean that you can say anything, except 'certain politically incorrect things'?

If you made a game based on running a horse slaughterhouse, would I be outraged and demand that you remove it from the internet? No. My opinion of you might decline sharply if I knew about it, but I uphold your right to express yourself.
Gagnar The Unruly
ocalhoun wrote:
If you made a game based on running a horse slaughterhouse, would I be outraged and demand that you remove it from the internet? No. My opinion of you might decline sharply if I knew about it, but I uphold your right to express yourself.


But you wouldn't give it a "thumbs up," either.
ocalhoun
^Nope, the thumbs up comes from three factors:

1: I am in favor of killing humans.
2: It was a great idea to demand $3000 for an apology.
3: I applaud the fact that he did it despite political correctnes (which I detest)

Just one of these factors alone probably woudn't earn a thumbs up from me, but all of them together do.
Liu
I'm going to skin horses alive as a medium for my freedom of expression to express just how much I despise horses. Thank you for your full support in for me do so ocal.

If people don't like me doing so, ignore the fact that I did it, no one is forcing you to participate in it.
ocalhoun
Liu wrote:

If people don't like me doing so, ignore the fact that I did it, no one is forcing you to participate in it.

Exactly. Though, if you're going to do that in real life, you might be subject to animal cruelty laws. If you're just going to talk, write, make a movie about, or make a game about it, that doesn't concern me any. You do have a right to freedom of expression, but you do not have a right to abuse animals. Just like the maker of this game has a right to do what he did, but the person who actually did it did not have a right to shoot lots of people.
arranf
Seems like he is extremely bored, that, or he feels strongly for the gunman. I can understand the gunman but feel no sympathy.
ocalhoun
^I'm not arguing about whether the gunman was justified. I'm arguing that the maker of the game was justified, or at least that he did nothing illigal and nothing quite worthy of the massive negative response. I'm also arguing that the person who made the game was fully in the right to stand up for his freedom of expression against the smothering political correctnes that is so ubiquitous these days.
Liu
So you're arguing, a person can do anything he wants so far as he obeys the law, regardless of deeper morality issues of whether doing so is actually right or wrong.

You fail to realize that there are things that are right in accordance to law, and there are things that are morally wrong. If there was no law against me going around socking baby animals in the face, would you be opposed to it?
ocalhoun
Liu wrote:
If there was no law against me going around socking baby animals in the face, would you be opposed to it?

Yes, because 'socking baby animals in the face' actually hurts someone; the animals.
Designing a video game doesn't hurt anybody.
(besides, perhaps hurting people's feelings that is, but here's two easy ways to deal with that:
1: Get thicker skin (don't let your feelings be hurt so easily)
2: Ignore it. As I said earlier, nobody forces people to play this game.)
Liu
ocalhoun wrote:

Yes, because 'socking baby animals in the face' actually hurts someone; the animals.
Designing a video game doesn't hurt anybody.
(besides, perhaps hurting people's feelings that is, but here's two easy ways to deal with that:
1: Get thicker skin (don't let your feelings be hurt so easily)
2: Ignore it. As I said earlier, nobody forces people to play this game.)

Well in that case, the animals should be smart enough to wear protective masks. And if they're not, it's their own fault.

Just like it's peoples own fault if their feelings get hurt so easily. It's not my fault animal faces are so tender. And hey, ignore it because you're not the one getting hurt, animals are.

Quote:

So you're arguing, a person can do anything he wants so far as he obeys the law, regardless of deeper morality issues of whether doing so is actually right or wrong.

Are you ageeing to this?

Quote:

You fail to realize that there are things that are right in accordance to law, and there are things that are morally wrong.

Are you agreeing to this as well?
arranf
Liu wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Yes, because 'socking baby animals in the face' actually hurts someone; the animals.
Designing a video game doesn't hurt anybody.
(besides, perhaps hurting people's feelings that is, but here's two easy ways to deal with that:
1: Get thicker skin (don't let your feelings be hurt so easily)
2: Ignore it. As I said earlier, nobody forces people to play this game.)

Well in that case, the animals should be smart enough to wear protective masks. And if they're not, it's their own fault.

Just like it's peoples own fault if their feelings get hurt so easily. It's not my fault animal faces are so tender. And hey, ignore it because you're not the one getting hurt, animals are.

Animals don't actually think, they react. So basically it's not they're fault.
Say your mum died. Feelings just got hurt right?

Quote:

So you're arguing, a person can do anything he wants so far as he obeys the law, regardless of deeper morality issues of whether doing so is actually right or wrong.

Are you ageeing to this?

Quote:

You fail to realize that there are things that are right in accordance to law, and there are things that are morally wrong.

Are you agreeing to this as well?
Hogwarts
Liu wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Yes, because 'socking baby animals in the face' actually hurts someone; the animals.
Designing a video game doesn't hurt anybody.
(besides, perhaps hurting people's feelings that is, but here's two easy ways to deal with that:
1: Get thicker skin (don't let your feelings be hurt so easily)
2: Ignore it. As I said earlier, nobody forces people to play this game.)

Well in that case, the animals should be smart enough to wear protective masks. And if they're not, it's their own fault.

Just like it's peoples own fault if their feelings get hurt so easily. It's not my fault animal faces are so tender. And hey, ignore it because you're not the one getting hurt, animals are.

I agree with Ocalhoun. The game isn't hurting anybody... It's made by an incredibly heartless person, yet worse things happen in nature (I.e. a lion eating a small kitten Sad)

With all sympathy to the familes of the people who were killed, ocalhoun has a point... But I do agree that this person is the lowest scum of scum... (Even through my partly-anti-humanitarian views)
Azmo
I do think it is wrong to create this game.. but still I can't help thinking of alot of other games based on true stories, like the world wars for example, how many people couldnt get pissed about this, those who actually where there, killed and got wonded in the battles, all fear and stuff.. the only thing about this that's so wrong, is that it's way to close to the murders, and that it's unserious..

I agree that what happend was horrible, and I do feel sad for those who lost a friend or a relative. So I'm not suporting this game at all.. but if he wouldnt have done it, someone else would, and he made some $$ on the game.. I would say that the real sick people are those who play this game and think it's funny to act like a serial killer who murdered alot of young people..
Liu
arranf wrote:


Animals don't actually think, they react. So basically it's not they're fault.


This is debatable.

Quote:

The game isn't hurting anybody...

You mean physically only?

Quote:

It's made by an incredibly heartless person, yet worse things happen in nature (I.e. a lion eating a small kitten Sad)

So you're justifying someone's actions with events that you consider worse?

Quote:

With all sympathy to the familes of the people who were killed, ocalhoun has a point... But I do agree that this person is the lowest scum of scum... (Even through my partly-anti-humanitarian views)

His point that i'm getting across is that he will support freedom of speech no matter what (so long as it obeys all other laws). Regardless of underlying other moral values.
Hogwarts
Quote:
You mean physically only?



Quote:
So you're justifying someone's actions with events that you consider worse?
No. But there are crueler things happening in this world... get over it

Quote:
His point that i'm getting across is that he will support freedom of speech no matter what (so long as it obeys all other laws). Regardless of underlying other moral values.

So do I. Is this any different to games similar to "Kill Saddam" where Saddams children are killed? I-don't-think-so.

Even the biggest of arses have feelings.
ocalhoun
Liu wrote:

Quote:

So you're arguing, a person can do anything he wants so far as he obeys the law, regardless of deeper morality issues of whether doing so is actually right or wrong.

Are you ageeing to this?

Quote:

You fail to realize that there are things that are right in accordance to law, and there are things that are morally wrong.

Are you agreeing to this as well?

No. I'm saying that a person can SAY (or print or draw or film in a movie or portray in a video game) anything he wants so far as he obeys the law, regardless of deeper morality issues of whether doing so is actually right or wrong. This holds true as long as the person is not phisically harming people or animals (or people's property for that matter). Another exception to this rule is if it is forced on people. If people are absolutely forced to listen to you to avoid physical harm, then you need to try not to offend them deeply.
I realize that morality and law are two different things. However, a moral issue should not be able to take a game like that off the internet. A moral issue should not have any more power than the ability to try to persuade the offending person to stop the offending action. I'm defending the constitutional right because I see a chance of us becoming like Canada, where a preacher broke the law when he preached against homosexuality in church, even though it is denounced clearly and repeatedly in the bible.
suntzu3500
Vrythramax wrote:
I don't usually condone violence...but that kid needs a good beating plain and simple.


Ditto. Evil or Very Mad that's all there is to say.
joshumu
To start, describing the game in such graphic detail creates the same effect as the game itself. In fact, most people would have no idea the game existed if it wasn't for you insensitive types that blow it up for the whole world to see. Next, where our antagonist created a game (art), abate an insensitive one, most of you are opting for more violence bringing you closer Cho then our game designer will ever be. Lastly, and most importantly, the game is fun and thats all that matters.

Get off your high horses.
ocalhoun
joshumu wrote:
, most of you are opting for more violence bringing you closer Cho then our game designer will ever be.

An extremely good point! I notice that several times in this thread the game designer was threatened with physical harm, though he has not physically harmed anyone. The reasonable response to something that offended you so badly would be to either a) Stoically ignore it, or b) offend right back.
Vrythramax
joshumu wrote:
To start, describing the game in such graphic detail creates the same effect as the game itself. In fact, most people would have no idea the game existed if it wasn't for you insensitive types that blow it up for the whole world to see. Next, where our antagonist created a game (art), abate an insensitive one, most of you are opting for more violence bringing you closer Cho then our game designer will ever be. Lastly, and most importantly, the game is fun and thats all that matters.

Get off your high horses.


I totally agree. not to mention the extortion displayed to remove the game or to aplogize. To epress an apology implies something was done that was wrong.

Simply put this whole thing is wrong...no matter who thinks it's a matter of "right to free speach"...this is not free speach...it is an explotation of a a horrible tragedy.

If I said or did something that offended someone...would paying a fee (extortion) to make it right....or should I not pay and fall upon the the right to free speach?
missdixy
Wow, what an arse.
I hope people don't donate to his dumb ass.
Vrythramax
missdixy wrote:
Wow, what an arse.
I hope people don't donate to his dumb ass.


I agree, and your point was not only taken, but eloquent and succinct as well.

Nicely phrased.
Mathew Elric
Wasn't there a Counter Strike Mod that had to do with V tech and a bunch of people got into an uproar about it so they took it down? Thought I heard something on G4 about it.
ainieas
I have a question - had the boy not used the actual names of people and kept the references subtle yet keeping the whole concept of the game just the same, would we be arguing about the moral issues associated with the game? would anyone have noticed the game?

Me, I don't think so.
Vrythramax
Some people are using this topic to help promote this shiite, so now the topic is -closed-


Sue me.
Related topics
Favourite game? (OFFICIAL THREAD)
Korean man 'overdoses' on gaming
What are your dreams and priorities in life?
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
10 games to keep your child away from
Final Fantasy Series
SuperBowl
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Half Life 2
BCS Title Game: OHIO STATE vs. FLORIDA
33 dead at Virginia Tech Shooting
[var] Masacre en Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech, We are with you.
Windows 8 Upgrade Offer: $40, Even if Upgrading From Win XP
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.